Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:03:46 -0400 From: Chris Nehren <apeiron+freebsd-stable@isuckatdomains.net> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ? Message-ID: <20120602010346.GA27660@isuckatdomains.members.linode.com> In-Reply-To: <20120601131236.GJ8591@macbook.bluepipe.net> References: <CAOgwaMvsv3e1TxDauV038Pp7LRiYeH7oAODE%2Bw-pxHt9oGrXMA@mail.gmail.com> <20120601121555.GF5335@home.opsec.eu> <4FC8B67D.5090208@digsys.bg> <20120601131236.GJ8591@macbook.bluepipe.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 15:12:36 +0200 , Phil Regnauld wrote: > > * full virtualization > > I am using VirtualBox in production with HAST + ZVOLs, but we need > something like DRBD's dual master mode to be able to do a teleport of the > instance like Ganeti does (http://code.google.com/p/ganeti/) with Linux > > Getting Xen dom0 and/or KVM would be a major boost as a virtualization > platform, in particular with ZFS. > > * Gluster > > For very large FSes, nothing beats it, especially now that 3.3 has been > released. > You say your'e using ZVOLs but then recommend gluster for large filesystems. I would like to take a moment to point out that one of the design goals of ZFS was to scale beyond the capabilities of current hardware. What does gluster do that ZFS does not? I'm not trying to troll here, but am genuinely curious about ZFS's shortfalls in one of the problem domains it seeks to address. -- Thanks and best regards, Chris Nehren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120602010346.GA27660>